The company enforcing their trademark has not trademarked the word “Hoarder” and evidently they won anyway. So I guess it isn’t really a truism, and “having a case” is more arbitrary than you seem to think.
U think you’re just pointing out that trademark law doesn’t work the way a reasonable person would assume. I agree, it’s crazy. But if they won, then it was relevant to their trademark (somehow), and failure to bring relevant cases can lead to losing it.
So yes, it’s weird and sketchy and feels morally wrong. But also yes, it’s required and expected legally.
Oh good! Then they have no case and will lose.
They did not lose. The maintainer of Hoarder had to rebrand to KaraKeep, hence this post.
They didn’t son win either, the dispute is ongoing.
Then they had a case
I thought you said they didn’t?
If they had no case they lost. If they have a case, they win.
It’s a truism.
The company enforcing their trademark has not trademarked the word “Hoarder” and evidently they won anyway. So I guess it isn’t really a truism, and “having a case” is more arbitrary than you seem to think.
U think you’re just pointing out that trademark law doesn’t work the way a reasonable person would assume. I agree, it’s crazy. But if they won, then it was relevant to their trademark (somehow), and failure to bring relevant cases can lead to losing it.
So yes, it’s weird and sketchy and feels morally wrong. But also yes, it’s required and expected legally.